Archive for the ‘Alex Jones’ Category

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
March 10, 2012

The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.

Advertisements

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over Obama’s brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional authority.

Eric Blair
Infowars.com
March 11, 2012

Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored, they renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without congressional approval.  Now, lawmakers seem to have finally decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.


Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year.  Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.

Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

“Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate’s approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.  Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it’s still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.

Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely:

We conclude…that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President’s constitutional power.  At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to “war” in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.

The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.’s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.

However, in no way were national interests under an “imminent” threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act.  Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.

The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn’t a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with.  However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.

Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constituted military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”:

This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process.  Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming “judicial process” was not the same as “due process” under the Constitution.
Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”

And as Wikipedia defines due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The Obama Administration has clearly “offended against the rule of law”, and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words.  It’s not a strong legal position to be in and it seems for the first time in history a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This article first appeared at Activist Post

Would Take Down Power Grid, Food Transportation, Water Utilities, Financial Systems

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

According to a recent study published by Space Weather: The International Journal of Research and Applications,  we have roughly a 12% chance of getting hit with a solar storm so powerful that it could take down the national power grid and yield catastrophic consequences for the general population. Pete Riley, a senior scientist at Predictive Science in San Diego, is the author of the study which looks at the probability of the occurrence of extreme weather events:

Via: On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events


Key Points

  • Probability of a Carrington event occurring over next decade is ~12%
  • Space physics datasets often display a power-law distribution
  • Power-law distribution can be exploited to predict extreme events

By virtue of their rarity, extreme space weather events, such as the Carrington event of 1859, are difficult to study, their rates of occurrence are difficult to estimate, and prediction of a specific future event is virtually impossible. Additionally, events may be extreme relative to one parameter but normal relative to others. In this study, we analyze several measures of the severity of space weather events (flare intensity, coronal mass ejection speeds)…

By showing that the frequency of occurrence scales as an inverse power of the severity of the event, and assuming that this relationship holds at higher magnitudes, we are able to estimate the probability that an event larger than some criteria will occur within a certain interval of time in the future. For example, the probability of another Carrington event occurring within the next decade is ∼12%.

The 1859 Carrington Event, as described by Wired Science, may have been a marvel to observers and caused some setbacks in the developing telegraph infrastructure at the time, but a similar occurrence today could be a global game changer:

At the time of the Carrington Event, telegraph stations caught on fire, their networks experienced major outages and magnetic observatories recorded disturbances in the Earth’s field that were literally off the scale.

In today’s electrically dependent modern world, a similar scale solar storm could have catastrophic consequences. Auroras damage electrical power grids and may contribute to the erosion of oil and gas pipelines. They can disrupt GPS satellites and disturb or even completely black out radio communication on Earth.

During a geomagnetic storm in 1989, for instance, Canada’s Hydro-Quebec power grid collapsed within 90 seconds, leaving millions without power for up to nine hours.

The potential collateral damage in the U.S. of a Carrington-type solar storm might be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in the first year alone, with full recovery taking an estimated four to 10 years, according to a 2008 report from the National Research Council.

The post-storm effects of such an event are underestimated by the majority of the world’s population, including our political leadership. Like an electro magentic pulse attack, according to the National Research Council a massive enough solar storm could have long term effects that ”would likely include, for example, disruption of the transportation, communication, banking, and finance systems, and government services; the breakdown of the distribution of potable water owing to pump failure; and the loss of perishable foods and medications because of lack of refrigeration.

The worst case scenario has been outlined by the Center for Security Policy, which suggests that an EMP, or a solar storm that results in similar magnetic discharge across the United States, could potentially leave 90% of Americans dead within the first year:

Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can’t support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. “And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards.”

In the documentary Urban Danger, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett warns of the threat posed by a downed power grid and urges his fellow citizens to take action to protect themselves for the inevitable results that would follow:

We could have events in the future where the power grid will go down and it’s not, in any reasonable time, coming back up. For instance, if when the power grid went down some of our large transformers were destroyed, damaged beyond use, we don’t make any of those in this country. They’re made overseas and you order one and 18 months to two years later they will deliver it. Our power grid is very vulnerable. It’s very much on edge. Our military knows that.

There are a number of events that could create a situation in the cities where civil unrest would be a very high probability. And, I think that those who can, and those who understand, need to take advantage of the opportunity when these winds of strife are not blowing to move their families out of the city.

Source: Congressman Warns: “Those Who Can, Should Move Their Families Out Of the City”

For many, a 1 in 8 chance of a catastrophic event occurring in a decade’s time may be nothing to worry about.

For the emergency, disaster and preparedness minded individual, however, a massive solar storm with the potential to take out our modern day power grid and utility infrastructure  is just one in a variety of potentially catastrophic natural and man-made scenarios that could lead to the collapse of life in America as we know it today.

Though any given event on its own may have a low probability of occurrence, when combined with other potentialities like economic collapsecurrency collapse, global or regional military conflict, Super EMP, political destabilization, massive earthquakes (such as on the New Madrid fault), Tsunamisasteroids, pandemic, and cyber attacks the odds of a game changing paradigm shift in our lifetime’s rise significantly.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 7, 2012

Andrew Breitbart’s media empire undoubtedly posed a threat to the establishment. From the takedown of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to the outing of the USDA’s Shirley Sherrod and very public revelations about the seamy underside of ACORN, Breitbart was considered a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment.

Senators Frank Church and John Tower examine a CIA poison dart gun that causes cancer and heart attacks.

But it was his promise to release information that would critically damage Barack Obama prior to an election that really grabbed the attention of the establishment and possibly led to his assassination.

As firebrand talk show host Michael Savage said following Breitbart’s collapse on a Brentwood, California, street and his subsequent death from an apparent heart attack, he would be remiss if he didn’t suggest that the liberal gadfly was assassinated. “I’m asking a crazy question,” Savage said on his nationally syndicated radio show, “but so what? We the people want an answer. This was not an ordinary man. If I don’t ask this question, I would be remiss.”

Others insist Breitbart had a history of health issues and simply collapsed and died from a heart attack as thousands of Americans do every day. They say Savage, Alex Jones and many others who posit a Breitbart assassination are engaging in baseless conspiracy theories.

However, we do know that government engages in assassination of political enemies and has the means to do so without leaving a trace.

During Senate testimony in 1975 into illegal activities by the CIA, it was revealed that the agency had developed a dart gun capable of causing a heart attack. “At the first televised hearing, staged in the Senate Caucus Room, Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands,” a Senate web page explains.

“The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes. Sounds like the perfect James Bond weapon, doesn’t it? Yet this is all verifiable in Congressional testimony,” writes Fred Burks.

“The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target.”

Burks suggests that Mark Pittman, a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings which led to a Bloomberg lawsuit against the bankster cartel, may have been assassinated with the CIA weapon.

Of course, Breitbart’s untimely death prior to the release of information that would damage the presidential campaign of Obama may be purely coincidental. If he was, however, assassinated with a frozen dart that denatures and leaves no trace, chances are we will never know what really happened

 

Infowars.com
March 7, 2012

Dr. Graeme MacQueen discusses the 9-11 attacks and anthrax mailings in his presentation “The Fictional Basis of the War On Terror”.

Harvard University,
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies
May 22 2010

 

The Spectacle Blog

By on 3.7.12 @ 12:45PM

In an extraordinary development reported exclusively by Dan Riehl over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, the Democrats’ deliberate refusal to accept Rush Limbaugh’s apology, coupled with the President’s attack on Rush, has fueled a stunning surge in death threats against the conservative champion.

The American left, its proclivity for violence well demonstrated over the centuries from riots over race, labor, Vietnam and Occupy Wall Street to specific assassinations such as that of President John F. Kennedy by Communist and pro-Castro activist Lee Harvey Oswald, has now been stirred to talk of violence against Limbaugh.

The threats also comes in the wake of a left-wing drive to intimidate Limbaugh sponsors.

Limbaugh’s audience will doubtless be even further infuriated by the news of the physical threats, captured in screen saves by Riehl. As reported here at the Daily Caller, Carbonite — which officiously withdrew as a Limbaugh sponsor and then was revealed to be headed by MoveOn.org contributor and leftist businessman David Friend — has seen its stock plummet, its infuriated conservative customers dumping the product in droves.

Media Matters has tried, in typical style, to fuel the impression sponsors are abandoning Limbaugh in droves with stories like this.

The story is a deliberate lie. Limbaugh opened his program today explaining the inside baseball of radio advertising. There is a difference between local advertisers, whose dollars do not go to Limbaugh at all, and national advertisers — like Carbonite. Media Matters — and I debated Media Matters’ guy Eric Bohlert yesterday on KQED in San Francisco — deliberately misleads, and knows it, since it surely understands the difference in revenue streams between local and national advertisers.

Limbaugh also announced that new national sponsors are lining up to replace those who left — and notably, that there are at least two who want back in. In fact are “begging” to do so.

Get ready for some surprises.

Doubtless this backlash against Carbonite and others comes from the furious reaction of Rush’s audience.

The Rally for Rush continues. And it’s working.

More evidence emerges of vote fraud to prevent Ron Paul winning

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 16, 2012


Yet more evidence of possible vote fraud has been uncovered in Maine, where several towns and counties did caucus but were omitted from the final state count for no identifiable reason.

As we previously reported, much to the ire of the Ron Paul campaign, Washington County – where Ron Paul was incredibly strong – had its caucus delayed by a week due to a warning of snow that never materialized.

In addition, some other towns had scheduled their caucuses differently to the rest of the State and will vote in the days and weeks to come.

Despite these facts, and despite Mitt Romney’s lead being just 194 votes after 84 percent of the voting had taken place, GOP representatives in Maine and the mainstream media declared that Romney was the outright winner, much to the disbelief of many onlookers, especially Ron Paul supporters.

Now it has emerged that Romney’s “victory” in Maine is even more in doubt.

Local reporters in Maine have pounced on the revelations that the vote for most Waldo County towns was entered as “0”, as if no one had turned out to vote

Rachel Maddow expanded on the reports in a feature on MSNBC yesterday, pointing out that when one town in Waldo attempted to call in its results, State officials said they already had results from the town showing Romney had won, when in reality that wasn’t the case and in fact Ron Paul had won.

In Waterville, Maine, Ron Paul also registered a victory, however, Waterville’s results were also recorded as a “0″ on the final State Tally.

In addition, having said originally that their delayed votes would be added to the State total, Washington County is now being told by State party officials that its result will no longer count at all. This is most likely in anticipation of the fact that Ron Paul supporters could ensure that a huge turnout in the county would hand the Congressman the victory, forcing the Maine Republican Party to backtrack and change the result, as officials were forced to do in Iowa last month.

Watch Maddow’s report:

A local media report adds more context to the potential fraud that has occurred in Maine:

Waldo County Republicans have called for a censure of Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster for his handling of the caucuses.

The anomalies that have been reported have been dismissed as “clerical errors”, however, the picture is becoming clear. In key places where Ron Paul won in Maine, the votes were simply omitted and ignored by the Republican Party.

The Paul campaign has been vocal about its disappointment with the Maine caucuses. Yet Paul’s campaign staff and Paul himself have pointed out that caucuses are nothing more than a straw poll, and the real contest is in the behind the scenes delegate selection process, where they believe they have cleaned up.

However, it also seems that anomalies have occurred in the delegate selection process in Maine. Local press has reported that in Portland, votes involving the choice of delegates to the state GOP convention, somehow got messed up, prompting officials to declare the vote void.

Many Ron Paul supporters are now calling on the campaign to demand an official recount and an investigation into whether vote fraud has occurred.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.